Bimbyism (bribery in my back yard)

Bribing local people so they’ll support planning applications is a growing trend and in the latest example people near a windfarm in Cornwall will get up to £150 and it is intended to expand the concession to people living near future developments. Julia Davenport, chief executive of the company, denied it was a “bribe” and said it was natural for locals to get “recognition” for doing their bit to combat climate change. So not a bribe, just “recognition”! The Department of Energy and Climate Change uses slightly less Sicilian language though. They say they are currently looking at “a range of financial incentives to encourage more communities to accept wind farms”.

Is it right though? The undeniable purpose of Bimbyism is to tip the scales against heritage protection by incentivising locals. Nationally significant heritage sites are nationally significant so it seems wrong that local bribes should affect their welfare. It isn’t that we’re anti-developments but surely planning decisions should be based on the merits of the case not on the fact that a few people that happen to be living in the area just now are being offered money to say yes?

A (slightly exaggerated) example to illustrate the point that incentivising, recognising or bribing locals might tip the scales too far.

6 comments

Honestly I don’t understand what’s the problem with the windmills? It seems some sort of “landscape obsession” but landscape is generally the product of human action (no sheep no grasslands for example). The mound seems well to me and hopefully some of the money made by those mills will help maintenance and protection of the site. Windmills are nice looking too.

Your point about bribery, however it’s described, is well made. With windfarms et al, it’s never an easy answer, for two reasons at least.
1. We know that virtually everywhere in Britain has the potential to display the work of past generations, not all of which is above the surface, so any development is going to disturb something, and probably destroy it. (Mind you, it can be argued that nearly all Britain is an industrial landscape, whether it’s heavy industry or agricultural.) It’s always a question of prioritising, with consequences attached whatever decision is made.
2. Proposed wind farms are attracting a lot of attention, and especially opprobrium, on the basis of eyesore, noise, animal disturbance, false economics and heritage for starters. I wonder how many would quixotically attack the heritage of old windmills in the east of the country now on the same basis, especially when they’re restored to working condition? They’re not on the same scale, of course, but in their heyday in the 17th and 18th century they were omnipresent, and no doubt blots on the landscape.

Just to play devil’s advocate here, I’m sure windmills would have dominated the landscape just as much in the 17th century as wind farms do now, regardless of scale, and may, who knows, have been aesthetically as displeasing then as their modern equivalents. Also, whether they’re windmills in flattish countryside (as opposed to watermills which seem to predominate in upland areas, for obvious reasons) or turbines on hills or offshore, you can’t miss them, especially if there’s nothing else of a similar scale.

Here in south-west Wales there is at least case where there are vested economic interests along with possible political corruption riding roughshod over local wishes, existing businesses, archaeological advice and an adjacent national park, and I absolutely abhor that. However, as I drive frequently through the beautiful Neath Valley towards Merthyr Tydfil I do enjoy and look forward to the sight of the dozen or so turbines that line the northern skyline, so I don’t always find them objectionable aesthetically.

I agree, they can look very pleasing in a place where they “fit” with the scale of the landscape. Of course, Heritage Action’s main concern is impact on heritage settings not landscape per se. Its all a case of where, and what line you draw I suppose. Best if the decision is rational and national though, and doesn’t involve dodgy deals!